1887

Abstract

Summary

Key to quantitative interpretation of 4D seismic data for the separation of pressure and saturation effects is accurate knowledge of their individual contributions to the 4D seismic signatures. Currently, pressure sensitivity is calibrated using laboratory measurements on core plugs that have limited applicability to the in-situ field-scale reservoir response. A complementary technique for estimating pressure sensitivity is to compare seismic and pressure measurements. This is possible in selected areas around and away from wells where pressure variations contribute predominantly to the 4D signatures. Multiple monitor 4D seismic data are utilised to sample these areas as a function of field production time. The technique is applied to seismic amplitudes across a variety of producing North Sea clastic reservoirs. The results indicate that pressure sensitivity varies according to the geology of each reservoir. Also, estimates around some water injectors appear to show elevated sensitivity, suggesting the presence of induced fractures.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601315
2016-05-30
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AminiH.
    2014. A pragmatic approach to simulator to seismic modelling for 4D seismic interpretation. PhD Thesis, Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Amini, H. and MacBethC.
    , 2015. Calibration of rock stress-sensitivity using 4D seismic data. Extended abstract, 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition, 1–4 June, Madrid, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. AlvarezE. and MacBethC.
    2014. An insightful parametrization for the flatlander’s interpretation of time-lapse seismic data. Geophysical Prospecting62(1), 75–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaumont, A. E. and Foster, H. N.
    1999. Treatise of Petroleum Geology/Handbook of Petroleum Geology: Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps. Chapter 5: Formation Fluid Pressure and Its Application. AAPG Special Volumes, Tulsa, OK, 64p.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fürre, A., Andersen, M., Moen, A. and Tønnessen, R.
    2009. Deriving effects of pressure depletion on elastic framework moduli from sonic logs. Geophysical Prospecting57(3), 427–437.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. MacBethC.
    2004. A classification for the pressure-sensitivity properties of a sandstone rock frame. Geophysics69(2), 497–510.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Omofoma, V., and MacBethC.
    , 2015. Intra-survey pressure variations – implications for 4D seismic interpretation. Extended abstract, 77th EAGE Conference and Exhibition 2015, 1–4 June, Madrid, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601315
Loading
/content/papers/10.3997/2214-4609.201601315
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error